Understanding that not everything has to mean something, we still try to provide meaning to things. Deriving meaning becomes infinitely harder when sample sizes are small: what size sample is important when considering a specific set of data? We don't always know, but I present you the CONCACAF Champions League data anyway. Below is the Expected Goals 1.0 data from the group stage of the CCL that I've compiled in the last couple of days.

Team

xGF

xGA

xGD

Cruz Azul

8.578

4.112

4.466

Toulca

7.528

3.488

4.04

Tijuana

6.617

3.018

3.599

America

6.975

4.017

2.958

Dynamo

5.683

3.417

2.266

LA Galaxy

7.052

4.95

2.102

Sporting KC

4.785

2.699

2.086

SJ Earthquakes

4.768

2.962

1.806

Montreal I.

3.816

8.796

-4.98

To be honest, this is my inventive way to present this information to you. I wanted to do an article about various things concerning CCL, but the problem always kind of leads back to sample size. Four games just isn't that much. The thing is, while you may not be able to draw any solid conclusions from this, it does give us a rough assessment for how Liga MX compares to MLS at this juncture, and it tells us that for the most part, MLS and Liga MX teams are better than the competition.

Mind you, teams have changed between when they qualified for CCL 2013-14 and now. This San Jose Earthquakes squad, for example, has quite a few new faces. Houston also has added a couple of pieces and underwent a some changes in the defensive rotation scheme.

xGD wasn't going to tell us too much about the semi-final matches that were played the last two nights. We knew that it was improbable that even two clubs were going to move forward. Furthermore it seems awkward to even consider that San Jose was the closest to advancing--and had it not been for a bad call, it probably would have.

What xGD did tell us is that all four Mexican clubs performed better in that short period than any of the MLS sides. Sure, a "duh" statement is in order, but this clarifies that point further than a cute 1990's radio morning drive show with catchy sound effects could. Cruz Azul seemed a superior team, for example, as they were nearly two expected goals better than any MLS side. In a short tournament that says something stronger than their actual goal tallies.

Yes, I realize the whole sample size thing, and really it's funny submitting qualifying statements, but it's even more silly to consider that we qualify them despite the fact that we don't actually know if we need to. For all we know xGD stabilizes as a metric at six games or maybe even four. We'll get Matty on that...

Mexico's teams were better, and judging from everything going down on Twitter and how the fragile psyche of the average US Soccer fan seems almost devastated by this fact, the reality is that MLS is better than it has been. The league has grown so much, and considering the issues that still limit organizations from competing against Mexico, it's surprising how well we really do in this competition.

Now American teams aren't yet on the "elite" level yet. But they are still very good and are nearing the imaginary line of being able to compete on a greater level with Mexico. As the budgets of MLS increase, and the depth charts along with the academies grow deeper, you're only going to see MLS teams get better. Stating that an MLS team will never win the CCL is one of those hyperbole statements that is just crazy to me. I think it's an eventuality at this point that some club somewhere will knock Mexico off it's perch...sooner rather than later.